State v. Heisdorffer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Generally on-the-scene questioning * * * of citizens in the fact-finding process is not affected by our holding' ", wrote: "We do not believe Miranda should be interpreted to prevent an investigation to determine whether defendant had committed a crime subjecting him to arrest. The erratic path of the car and the smell of alcohol on defendant's breath furnished good cause to suspect defendant might be guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The tests were reasonably necessary to enable the patrolman to decide whether defendant should be arrested. The situation did not present an incommunicado interrogation of a person in a police dominated atmosphere condemned by Miranda.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Werlinger

2. ““Second, the performance of such tests does not amount to ‘evidence by communication in whatever form that communication may take’. State v. Sefcheck, Iowa, 157 N.W.2d 128, 135 . The observa tion of defendant during the tests makes his actions real or physical evidence against himself, rather than testimonial evidence. Such tests are more nearly akin to the taking of blood samples, fingerprints or handwriting exemplars. Requiring defendant to furnish such evidence does not violate his privilege against self incrimination. (Citing U. S. v. Wade and Gilbert v. California).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. RAUHAUSER v. State